h a l f b a k e r y"This may be bollocks, but it's lovely bollocks."
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
login
|
|
|
The Scientific God of Truth and Life in this religion is an idea ,which brings the people of this religion together bound by reasonable well established (but never totally proven) facts, the truth and sociable happiness. It is a mostly tolerant religion, with several rules that are only the obligation
of its members. but its protection and assistance have their borders, as we will soon see.
So the three foundational pillars of the religion are (in this order)
1. Reasonable Truth - as far as we can percieve it.
2. Cooperative Community - happy to help each other out. Obligated to rally behind the cause and march as one body against threatening entities, using the powers of reasoning and thought to outsmart any enemy.
3. Happiness. The goal is to make the world enjoyable.
This is the contradicting element, necessary to make the religion a bit illogical, conflictive, and inconsistent.
At this stage, before the religion is established, we need to debate: cruelty, censorship, "family values", free sex, and some other aspects that I didn't think of yet.
# Feelings:
The Scientific believer, holds the position that science based solely on reasoning is lacking, and leads to autistic theories of egotism and self indulgence only restricted by "strategic altruism" where for the benefit of the own one may temporarily suspend their egoism.
This egoistic "reasoning" is self defeating, and therefor unacceptable and must be eliminated, especially in a world filled with false beliefs that are out to eliminate science, on the one hand, and on the other hand continuous attempts to advance self-defeating beliefs in the futility of human kind, or the necessity of our demise.
So, even though feelings may be naturally evolving mechanisms not understood (yet), or misunderstood, they, especially empathy, are part of the acknowledged scientific reality of the world, and taken into consideration in our religious plans and actions.
# Choice:
Even if it can be proven that there is no free will, because (1) either everything is pre-determined, or (2) the world is totally random with no way to calculate the future till we are there in the future with the past already locked to changes, or (3) there are multiple parallel possibilities and we are one branch of those (that would be our unfounded-illogical belief branch), even so, the devoted believers of this scientific religion, believe, until proven wrong, that free will is a necessary belief for a sustainable community and for the sustainability of humankind.
# Reward and Punishment
God does not "punish you" for transgressions, but he does award you for living a happy helpful and cooperative life, using our brains to help make the world a better place.
The reward is in the collective. Although taking away a minor segment of your individuality, The community encourages you and helps build you up personally.
Kierkegaard
https://plato.stanf...ntries/kierkegaard/
The Stanford Encyclopedia version [pertinax, Jul 12 2026]
Kierkegaard
https://existentialcomics.com/comic/606
The cartoon version [pertinax, Jul 12 2026]
MacDonough’s Song
https://www.kipling...oems_macdonough.htm
[Voice, Jul 15 2026]
|
| |
//we need to debate: cruelty, censorship, "family values", free sex// |
|
| |
And having sorted those out, what are you going to do *after* lunch? |
|
| |
Then the debate begins as to why god created the myriad of horrible diseases that inflict people. [I'm not a participant in this debate as I have zero belief in any kind of god] I do believe in chocolate, beer, crisps, vegetable chow mein and a long list of other deities. |
|
| |
Well, at least lunch itself is looking good. |
|
| |
Regarding why the idea won't work, see links. |
|
| |
I am compelled to question the category choice as well ... How about Computer: Game: Massively Multiplayer ? |
|
| |
Sounds like you’re trying to think of ways to get positive stuff going, nothing wrong with that. [+] |
|
| |
Thanks pert. So anyone who accepts science and dismisses the "creator" gods, will balk at this idea of accepting an idea to lead us as a community? Just because actually they cannot agree on anything if its not a predominantly unquestionable fact of reality? |
|
| |
Xenxag, so you don't believe ideas exist, or is it scientific blasphemy to use the name of "god" (or of "a god") in a positive unsubstantial form, giving some seeming legitimacy to the real religion gods? Is that the problem? |
|
| |
Yes, [pashute], that's a good approximation. It's complicated - but, in outline, lots of other people have had the thought "let's have something that's like a religion, but scientific and rational". Hegel thought he'd cracked it, early in the C19th, and Kierkegaard was one of the first to point out that he hadn't. There have been other attempts, but you get the general idea. |
|
| |
As regards the specific question of free will, what you're looking at is Kant's Third Antinomy, which is found in his appropriately named "Critique of Pure Reason" (one generation before Hegel). Basically, there's one sense in which there *is* free will, and another sense in which there *isn't* and, instead of trying to choose between them, you have to understand both if you want to make any progress on this subject. Warning; it's really hard work, which is why the internet is full of people talking confidently about this question who have never actually got that far. |
|
| |
Pashute - you can believe in whatever you want, as long as that belief doesn't generate horrible laws that are imposed on those who don't share those beliefs. (like me for example) All religions oppress and control people through a combination of lies, mumbo-jumbo, fear and the promised reward for acquiescence. My rewards are bagels that pop out of the toaster and receive a coating of Marmite. You can share in my belief in toasted bagels with Marmite at any time. |
|
| |
Or is it the new lack of belief in the existence of free will, leading all science acceptors to refrain from action, leading to takeover by motivated crazy religious murderous barbaric zealots or mean sadistic ruthless wicked and violent extinctionist conspirational "peace" vigilantes. |
|
| |
"Broken back" sentence? One that does too much heavy lifting. |
|
| |
At the risk of boring everyone by repetition, it's the same sentiment expressed by Bertrand Russell that I linked to just the other week: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." ... at least, I *think* that's what he said. |
|
| |
At least it's not dialectical materialism [+]. "Reasonable" is tricky. |
|
| |
//Happiness. The goal is to make the world enjoyable.// |
|
| |
I'd quite enjoy a house on a river/lake/ocean with a nice dock for a nice relaxing paddle around at sunset. Can I have one? No. Is there a lack of river/lake/sea shore? No, there's over a million lakes in the US/Canada. 7. million miles of river front. There's a whole lot of unused Delaware river front a mile or two from here. |
|
| |
Is there a shortage of house building materials? No. It's largely wood. Something like 1 billion cubic meters of timber equivalent burned in Canadian wildfires in 2025. Enough for ~14 million houses. 2026 will likely overtake that. |
|
| |
Canada is almost completely unpopulated land filled with unharvested construction materials. Yet there's a housing shortage. Happiness is actively being inhibited. |
|
| |